I don't think we should be following iphone news. It's seems pretty irrelevant to this site. There are so many other websites that follow Apple. If we are going to follow any tech with a screen, that seems too broad for a mobile reading forum.

Although in practice the smartphone market has become close to a duopoly, with only Samsung having significant success at the high-end.

You miss the point. The low end matters. People who can only afford, or choose not to spend their resources on, the high end, end up being the majority of consumers over time. This happened in computers, and many gadgets (althought not in music players - so far). Eventually the high end becomes niche, and the low end rules. And if your niche is separated by technological barriers, it will never recover.

A buyer of a low-end Android phone may someday migrate up to a high-end Android phone, but they won't migrate over to a iPhone. Just like an iPhone user won't migrate over to an Android...

Until two University of Rochester economists in the '70s (one liberal, one conservative) decided that doing the opposite would engender responsible management,* the way to avoid your scenario was not to make CEOs major shareholders of the companies for which they worked.

The purpose of the economists' idea was to prevent ridiculous abuses, cf. renting a Lear jet for a supposed business lunch in Honolulu. If you owned a stake in the business, they reasoned, you would be less likely to bill rash expenditures to it, and would probably take your obligations to it more seriously.

The result was to create a worse situation than the one they attempted to fix.

After they were made major shareholders, many CEOs chose to inflate stock prices by any bloody means necessary (see the short bleak career of "Chainsaw Al"). Many were willing to doom their own companies in the name of selling their own shares at a high profit.

Bang on. I'll quibble over one thing. The 1976 SEC ruling (13-D) that required buy-ins of over 5% of stock to be made public. Before then, underperforming companies could be quitely taken over and the underperforming management fired, without a bidding war. This gave an incentive for management to perform, or they might be out of their "phony-boloney jobs"...

But the low-end has never had an Apple monopoly, as Apple has never had a low-end phone, so what has changed there?
What has changed is the loss of the near-monopoly at the high-end.

Apple was trying to keep the entire market as a high end monopoly. You paid Apple's price or you didn't get a good smart phone. That's why all the lawsuits. They were trying to protect a monopoly that had been maximized for profit. They have failed world-wide, even their US patent that was the major portion of their Samsung lawsuit has been reviewed and found invalid.

Android offers a effective choice. It is not a Samsung monopoly, other players can use the base Android. If they don't sell as well individually, the entire grouping matters, vis-a-vie the Apple ecosphere. They still lead to consumers getting smart phones that aren't iOS...

(Think of the computer world of the 1980's. IBM PC ruled, but they had cheaper clones running Microsoft OS'es. People might replace a clone with an IBM PC, and keep their software and UI, but they (mostly) wouldn't go and convert to a Mac OS, even if it was better, because of 1. cost (Apple didn't allow clones and charge high prices, even relative to PCs, 2. Lack of specialised software, and 3. having to learn the new interface...)

I don't think we should be following iphone news. It's seems pretty irrelevant to this site. There are so many other websites that follow Apple. If we are going to follow any tech with a screen, that seems too broad for a mobile reading forum.

But the reasons why it was falling before didn't go away. It didn't fall faster than before.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatNY

In this case X is known. All Apple need do is come out and say that the statement is wrong. They needn't prove it.

And what is X?

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatNY

The iPhone 3G cannot run the new iOS. That's the point I was making previously. And the words "budget" and "cheap" to describe the 3G and a hypothetical Mini line are yours. I would not use those words.

Actually the word "cheap" belonged to Apple's Senior Vice President of Marketing, which was quoted in the article that you quoted:

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatNY

jbjb, you have a point, but companies publicly deny rumors all the time. Here are a few examples from Apple ...

As stories of an upcoming launch of a new, more affordable iPhone mount, Apple's Senior Vice President of Marketing moves to quash rumors.

Speaking to the Shanghai Evening News, Phil Schiller said: "Despite the popularity of cheap smartphones, this will never be the future of Apple's products. In fact, although Apple's [global] market share of smartphones is just about 20%, we own 75% of the profit."

Now I understand that you don't consider that the hypothetical Mini can be called "cheap", but in that case Apple didn't deny the rumor of a Mini, it just denied that it will make a cheap smartphone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by markbot

I don't think we should be following iphone news. It's seems pretty irrelevant to this site. There are so many other websites that follow Apple. If we are going to follow any tech with a screen, that seems too broad for a mobile reading forum.

But the iPhone isn't just any tech with a screen, it's a very popular tech with a screen and reading apps.

But the reasons why it was falling before didn't go away. It didn't fall faster than before.

But you will never know how much the negative news may be further eroding a price until you refute that news.

Quote:

And what is X?

11 to 14 million

Quote:

Actually the word "cheap" belonged to Apple's Senior Vice President of Marketing, which was quoted in the article that you quoted:

But he's referring to the competition (a not too subtle dig there), NOT to any current or future Apple product. Which is my point.

Quote:

Now I understand that you don't consider that the hypothetical Mini can be called "cheap", but in that case Apple didn't deny the rumor of a Mini, it just denied that it will make a cheap smartphone.

Apple denied the rumors that were out in the media about the "Mini." Not my own personal conception of what a "Mini" would or should be.

For some reason, analysts and writers were going hog wild describing a hypothetical Mini -- and they were using words like "budget" and "cheap" and imagining all sorts of cuts in quality and features. The Apple exec squashed that vision of the "Mini."

Personally, I think it's silly to use the term Mini to describe a phone in the context of the current iPhone line. If it means a screen smaller than 3.5" I think it will fail. If it means going back to a 3.5" but with simply pared down specs, then "Mini" is the wrong word to use since 3.5" is what most current iPhones have. Yes, there is an S III Mini, but that "mini" is in relation to one specific distinct model. And even then, I wonder if Samsung couldn't have come up with a better name.

I don't think we should be following iphone news. It's seems pretty irrelevant to this site. There are so many other websites that follow Apple. If we are going to follow any tech with a screen, that seems too broad for a mobile reading forum.

These are the only threads that get any traction around here and it's the snark that keeps them going.

You either ignore it, turn them off, or sit back and laugh. I'd recommend the latter, though it's all very predictable after awhile, rather like a single season sit-com.

Does make one wonder, though... maybe S.J. made one of them cry, their frail mother was killed when a IIe toppled over, they bought a clamshell MacBook and everyone laughed, Woz wouldn't stop his Segue to sign an autograph...

But you will never know how much the negative news may be further eroding a price until you refute that news.

What you can see is that the price didn't go down faster than it was already going.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatNY

11 to 14 million

The original quote was:

Quote:

According to the New York Times, which spoke with NPD DisplaySearch analyst Paul Semenza, Apple had expected to order 19 million displays for its iPhone 5 in January, but cut it to between 11 million and 14 million.

Which doesn't say that Apple actually ordered 19 million displays, then changed its mind. And the value between 11 to 14 million is an estimate, the analyst didn't say that he knows how many displays are being made. What is Apple supposed to dispute?

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatNY

But he's referring to the competition (a not too subtle dig there), NOT to any current or future Apple product. Which is my point.

Apple denied the rumors that were out in the media about the "Mini." Not my own personal conception of what a "Mini" would or should be.

For some reason, analysts and writers were going hog wild describing a hypothetical Mini -- and they were using words like "budget" and "cheap" and imagining all sorts of cuts in quality and features. The Apple exec squashed that vision of the "Mini."

Personally, I think it's silly to use the term Mini to describe a phone in the context of the current iPhone line. If it means a screen smaller than 3.5" I think it will fail. If it means going back to a 3.5" but with simply pared down specs, then "Mini" is the wrong word to use since 3.5" is what most current iPhones have. Yes, there is an S III Mini, but that "mini" is in relation to one specific distinct model. And even then, I wonder if Samsung couldn't have come up with a better name.

You aren't making sense to me.
The media talked about a budget iphone which they called "Mini". Apple said that it's not going to make a cheap smartphone in response to the rumors about the Mini. You quoted people talking about this hypothetical phone, but at some point you decided to talk about a different hypothetical phone, which you insist on calling by the same name. You could have at least mentioned it when you started to talk about a different phone, or refer to it by a different name.

What you can see is that the price didn't go down faster than it was already going.

You still don't know how much the latest news is contributing to any current decline. Only by removing or neutralizing that news as a factor can you begin to know.

Quote:

Which doesn't say that Apple actually ordered 19 million displays, then changed its mind. And the value between 11 to 14 million is an estimate, the analyst didn't say that he knows how many displays are being made. What is Apple supposed to dispute?

I take "Apple had expected to order 19 million displays for its iPhone 5 in January" to mean that was the original order. And that 19 million amount is consistent with Apple's past quarterly sales figures for their flagship phone. The phrase "had expected to order" is merely the reporters wording, a semantical difference. I think it's pretty clear that they had essentially ordered 19 million screens from the vendors in question.

And to me, the 11 to 14 million numbers used in this context are not an estimate but a range. There are multiple screen suppliers in the chain. It would appear they have good information on cuts in orders for at least one or two of those suppliers, but not for the other(s). Or at least some of the cuts may be tentative or in flux. If there were only one supplier I could see your point, and then that would appear to be an estimate.

Quote:

You aren't making sense to me.
The media talked about a budget iphone which they called "Mini". Apple said that it's not going to make a cheap smartphone in response to the rumors about the Mini. You quoted people talking about this hypothetical phone, but at some point you decided to talk about a different hypothetical phone, which you insist on calling by the same name. You could have at least mentioned it when you started to talk about a different phone, or refer to it by a different name.

And I really don't understand your confusion. Apple gave an interview that debunked the concept of an iPhone "Mini" as put forth by the media. (Not my concept, obviously.) And, separately, I voiced my own opinions as to what a hypothetical "Mini" should or would be like if there were to be one. I kept the term "Mini" because it basically is referring to Apple's next-step phone (or step to increase market share). The term was synonymous with it at the time the "Mini" concept was percolating out there.

Also, I was using words like "As an aside ... might ... maybe" so isn't that clear it was just speculation coming from me? "As an aside" would mean I am clearly veering off course.

By the way, the quote from the Apple exec denying a "Mini" was given merely to show that Apple will debunk things when they are false. If you look at the comment I posted it in, that's pretty clear. It had nothing to do with the Mini per se. It's just one of the first examples that came up in Google when I was looking for examples of Apple debunking false rumors.

I take "Apple had expected to order 19 million displays for its iPhone 5 in January" to mean that was the original order.

Then he would have said "Apple had ordered 19 million...", surely?
He is not claiming that Apple ordered 19 million, he is claiming that Apple were going to order 19 million, but didn't.

Quote:

And that 19 million amount is consistent with Apple's past quarterly sales figures for their flagship phone.

It would be a good increase on their previous figures.
In the equivalent quarter last year, Apple sold 35 million iPhones, or a bit under 12 million per month. And that was their second best quarter ever. Across the whole of 2012, they sold 10.5 million per month.

Quote:

The phrase "had expected to order" is merely the reporters wording, a semantical difference.

I expected to go to work today.
I went to work today.
One of those statements is true, the other is not.
They are clearly two very different claims.
He is not claiming a measurable fact (what Apple had ordered), he is claiming knowledge of their intent (what they expected to order).

Quote:

I think it's pretty clear that they had essentially ordered 19 million screens from the vendors in question.

That really, really isn't clear.
Even if you assume that all the information in the story is true, it wouldn't actually say that.
You seem to be putting an awful lot of blind faith in this story.

He is not claiming that Apple ordered 19 million, he is claiming that Apple were going to order 19 million, but didn't.

No, it was a manner of speaking. Semantics. He is claiming that at some point, Apple told these multiple vendors that they would be ordering 19 million screens in January. And that they subsequently told the vendors to cut the amount by 5 to 8 million. Apple may actually have put through the order in writing initially.

Quote:

It would be a good increase on their previous figures.
In the equivalent quarter last year, Apple sold 35 million iPhones, or a bit under 12 million per month. And that was their second best quarter ever. Across the whole of 2012, they sold 10.5 million per month.

Why? If they are ordering by the month, which appears to be the case, then they can adjust their orders month by month. You wouldn't know how the numbers compared to previous quarters until all orders were in for that quarter. But the very fact that they cut the number previously ordered seems to indicate that demand may be lower than they expected.

The 19 million number is consistent with past quarters in the sense that it is not wildly over the amounts previously sold.

Quote:

I expected to go to work today.
I went to work today.
One of those statements is true, the other is not.
They are clearly two very different claims.
He is not claiming a measurable fact (what Apple had ordered), he is claiming knowledge of their intent (what they expected to order).

I called my local bakery last week Monday to order 20 pies for a party next week.
Two days later I call back and cut that amount to 10.
My baker tells his staff: "Pat had expected to order 20 pies for a party but cut that amount to 10."

Sounds fine to me.

It's a manner of speaking.

Quote:

You seem to be putting an awful lot of blind faith in this story.

No more blind faith than anyone else who takes at face value a story that has been independently verified and repeated by almost all major news outlets.

No, it was a manner of speaking. Semantics. He is claiming that at some point, Apple told these multiple vendors that they would be ordering 19 million screens in January. And that they subsequently told the vendors to cut the amount by 5 to 8 million. Apple may actually have put through the order in writing initially.

That just isn't what he said.
If he had meant to say that, why didn't he just say it?
You seem happy to place 100% belief in his figures, while disregarding his actual words.

Quote:

But the very fact that they cut the number previously ordered seems to indicate that demand may be lower than they expected.

Bangs head on wall.
It isn't a fact, it is a claim.
The cut their orders because demand is lower.
How do we know demand is lower? Because they cut their orders.

Quote:

The 19 million number is consistent with past quarters in the sense that it is not wildly over the amounts previously sold.

The 11-14 million figure is much more consistent with previous quarters.
19 million is almost twice the average monthly figure for last year.

All the numbers posted as the 'post-cut' figures seem perfectly reasonable, my issue has always been with the 'pre-cut' figures, which I think are ridiculous.
If anyone at Apple though that they would sell 65 million iPhones in Q2 then either:
a) They were smoking crack, or
b) The numbers they are about to release for Q1 must be off the charts.
I don't think either of those is particularly likely.
My guess is that when the Q2 figures are finally released, they will be less than the 3*14 = 42 million upper end of the 'post-cut' estimate.

Quote:

I called my local bakery last week Monday to order 20 pies for a party next week.
Two days later I call back and cut that amount to 10.
My baker tells his staff: "Pat had expected to order 20 pies for a party but cut that amount to 10."

Sounds fine to me.

It's a manner of speaking.

No, you did order 20 pies. You phone him, and ordered them.
If you had planned to, but never actually phoned him, then you would have expected to order 20 pies, but have not actually ordered them.

Quote:

No more blind faith than anyone else who takes at face value a story that has been independently verified and repeated by almost all major news outlets.

Really? How many of them are you saying have independently verified it?